Frequency of application of topical corticosteroids for atopic eczema

Transcription

1 Frequency of application of topical corticosteroids for Issued: August 2004 guidance.nice.org.uk/ta81 NICE 2004

2 Contents 1 Guidance Clinical need and practice The technology Evidence and interpretation Clinical effectiveness Cost effectiveness Consideration of the evidence Recommendations for further research Implications for the NHS Implementation and audit Related guidance Review of guidance Appendix A. Appraisal Committee members NICE Project Team Appendix B. Sources of evidence considered by the Committee Appendix C. Detail on criteria for audit of the frequency of application of topical corticosteroids for Possible objectives for an audit Possible patients to be included in the audit Measures that could be used as a basis for an audit Calculation of compliance Appendix D. Topical corticosteroids for the treatment of, grouped by potency Changes after publication About this guidance NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 2 of 39

3 1 Guidance This appraisal relates to the frequency of application of topical corticosteroids in the treatment of. It does not include the use of topical agents that combine corticosteroids with other active agents (for example, antimicrobials or salicylic acid). 1.1 It is recommended that topical corticosteroids for should be prescribed for application only once or twice. 1.2 It is recommended that where more than one alternative topical corticosteroid is considered clinically appropriate within a potency class, the drug with the lowest acquisition cost should be prescribed, taking into account pack size and frequency of application. NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 3 of 39

4 2 Clinical need and practice 2.1 Atopic eczema (synonymous with atopic dermatitis) is a chronic relapsing skin condition characterised by intense itching, dry skin, redness, inflammation and exudation. It affects mainly the flexor surfaces of the elbows and knees, as well as the face and neck. 2.2 The term 'atopic' refers to the association with atopy (a state of hypersensitivity to common environmental allergens that may be inherited), and differentiates from other forms of eczema such as irritant, allergic contact, discoid, venous, seborrhoeic and photosensitive eczema, which have different disease patterns and aetiologies. 2.3 Estimates of prevalence vary but suggest that the condition may affect as many as 15 20% of school-age children and 2 10% of adults. Most people with (more than 80%) experience mild disease; only around 2 4% of people with eczema have a severe form of the disease. Despite the lower prevalence, the presentation of disease in adults is often more severe and chronic in nature. 2.4 In most people with, the condition begins in early childhood often in the first year of life when it can be particularly severe. Findings from the National Child Development Study (NCDS), developed from the birth cohort of 1958, suggested an incidence of around 50 cases per 1000 in the first year of life, falling to 5 new cases per 1000 per year for the rest of childhood. In around 60% of children, the condition clears by the time they reach their teens. However, the tendency towards dry and irritable skin generally persists and later recurrences are common. 2.5 The aetiology of is complex and not fully understood. Genetic factors are important but environmental factors such as house dust mites, pollen, tobacco, air pollution and low humidity may cause its onset and/or exacerbate existing symptoms. More persistent disease has been consistently linked with early disease onset, severe widespread disease in early life, concomitant asthma or hay fever, and a family history of. The NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 4 of 39

5 condition is exacerbated by soap and detergents, clothes containing wool or certain synthetic fibres, and extremes of temperature. 2.6 The severity of varies enormously, from an occasional dry, scaly patch to a debilitating disease, where much of the body is covered by excoriated, bleeding and infected lesions. Its course may be continuous for prolonged periods or of a relapsing remitting nature, characterised by acute flare-ups. 2.7 Itching skin (pruritus) is a major symptom of. A vicious circle can occur, where itching and scratching damage the skin and increase inflammation, which in turn increases the itch. Damage to the skin from scratching can cause bleeding, secondary infection and thickening of the skin (lichenification). 2.8 The impact of on quality of life can be considerable, and varies according to disease severity. In addition to the burden imposed by treatment, studies have shown not only that the condition affects everyday activities such as work or school and social relationships, but also that people with may also experience anxiety, depression and other psychological problems. Sleep disturbance is common, especially during flareups, which in turn can lead to problems with irritability and lack of concentration. Severe in children can also have a significant impact on family life, with parents/carers having to cope with the demands associated with caring for a child with a chronic illness. 2.9 Historically, there have been variations over the clinical definition and diagnosis of. A UK Working Party has developed criteria for use in epidemiological studies, and these are now commonly used, although further validation is required. To qualify as a case of using these criteria, the person must have had an itchy skin condition in the past 12 months, plus three or more of the following: a history of flexural involvement (that is, affecting the bends of the elbows or behind the knees) a history of a generally dry skin NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 5 of 39

6 a personal history of other atopic disease (in children younger than 4 years, a history of atopic disease in a first-degree relative may be included) visible flexural dermatitis as defined by a photographic protocol onset before the age of 2 years (not used in children younger than 4 years) There is uncertainty and a lack of standardisation around clinical assessment of disease severity, both in practice and in trial settings. Although a number of scoring systems have been used to categorise the disease as mild, moderate or severe, usually by aggregating scores from a range of symptoms and disease characteristics, none of these scoring systems has been accepted as a 'gold standard' and there remains general debate over their use Atopic eczema in childhood shows a reverse social class gradient, with higher rates in socioeconomically advantaged groups and smaller families. There is also evidence of variation in prevalence by region, with the highest rates recorded in the South East and industrialised Midlands, and the lowest rates in Wales and Scotland Management of takes place predominantly in primary care, and aims to relieve symptoms and prevent complications such as infections until remission occurs. This management involves skin care, anti-inflammatory treatment, and the identification and avoidance of exacerbating factors. Providing people with good-quality information about these issues is essential to successfully managing and treating. Referral to secondary care is advised only if the condition is severe and has not responded to appropriate therapy Emollients are a first-line therapy for and aim to retain the skin's barrier function (keeping water in and irritants or pathogens out) and to prevent painful cracking. Frequent and continuous use is recommended even in the absence of symptoms. Preparations available include bath oils, soap substitutes and moisturisers; generally the greasier the preparation, the better the effect, although people using very greasy products may consider them unacceptable. NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 6 of 39

7 2.14 Topical corticosteroids are the first-line treatment for flare-ups of atopic eczema. In order to reduce exposure to topical corticosteroids, they are used only intermittently to control exacerbations. Treatment regimens for topical steroids vary with disease severity, with clinicians usually recommending use of the mildest potency products possible to treat the condition, in order to minimise the potential adverse effects. Emollients are used together with the topical corticosteroids Where there are associated bacterial or fungal infections, corticosteroids are combined with other substances (such as antimicrobials or salicylic acid) in topical preparations Other treatments for include antihistamines, topical immunomodulators (see Section 8), and wet wraps (when a layer of emollients with or without corticosteroids is applied to the skin and wrapped in wet bandages, followed by dry bandages, and left overnight), which may be used in an attempt to maximise the effect of treatment Treatments of last resort in resistant severe cases include systemic corticosteroids, phototherapy and systemic use of immunosuppressants. NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 7 of 39

8 3 The technology 3.1 Topical corticosteroids have anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects. The mechanism of the anti-inflammatory activity of topical steroids in general is unclear, although various symptomatic components of the inflammatory pathway are known to be suppressed. 3.2 Thirty preparations of topical corticosteroids are included in this appraisal (see Appendix D). Topical corticosteroids are classified according to their potency. This is determined by the amount of vasoconstriction a topical corticosteroid produces and the degree to which it inhibits inflammation (a more potent product increases suppression to the inflammatory pathway). In the UK, four potencies are recognised: mild, moderately potent, potent and very potent. Across the different potencies, products have different formulations and different strengths (for example, 0.025%, 0.1%, 0.5%) and are available in various preparations (for example, ointment, cream, lotion, foam). 3.3 The most widespread side effect of topical corticosteroid treatment is skin atrophy, where the skin becomes thin and may become easily bruised. This is more likely to occur on areas where the skin is already thin, such as the face or flexures. Absorption is greatest in these areas and therefore the use of potent steroids on these sites should generally be avoided. The skin may recover gradually after stopping treatment, but the original structure may never return. Prolonged or excessive use of potent steroids causes the dermis to lose its elasticity and stretch marks (striae) to appear, which are permanent. Children, especially babies, are particularly susceptible to side effects. The more potent corticosteroids are contraindicated for infants less than 1 year old. For full details of side effects and contraindications, see the Summaries of Product Characteristics (SPCs) for the topical corticosteroids. 3.4 Guidelines from the British Association of Dermatologists suggest that the best way of using topical corticosteroids is probably twice for days when the eczema is active, followed by a 'holiday period' of emollients only. The National Prescribing Centre recommends that, in general practice, topical corticosteroids be used in short bursts (for 3 7 days) to treat exacerbations of disease. NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 8 of 39

9 3.5 There are varying recommendations about the frequency of application. The British National Formulary (BNF) states that "corticosteroid preparations should normally be applied once or twice. It is not necessary to apply them more frequently". Although there are few empirical data to assess the patterns of prescribing with respect to frequency of application, it appears that a twice regimen is the most widespread approach to the use of topical corticosteroids in. However, the SPCs for some of the topical corticosteroids indicate that some are licensed for more frequent use (up to four times a day), and two products are licensed for use only once a day in. For individual posologies, see Appendix D. NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 9 of 39

10 4 Evidence and interpretation The Appraisal Committee (Appendix A) considered evidence from a number of sources (Appendix B). The remit given to NICE by the Department of Health/Welsh Assembly Government was to advise on the clinical and cost effectiveness of once- use compared with more frequent use of same-potency topical corticosteroids in the treatment of people with. The evidence appraised was restricted to comparisons of topical corticosteroids for within the same potency class. 4.1 Clinical effectiveness The Assessment Report reviewed data from one systematic review and ten randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined frequency of application of topical corticosteroids of the same potency. No RCTs or clinical controlled trials of mild topical corticosteroids were identified. One RCT examined moderately potent corticosteroids, eight RCTs examined potent corticosteroids and one RCT examined very potent corticosteroids The study setting was hospital or secondary care for four of the ten trials but was not reported in the remaining studies. The duration of treatment for the trials ranged from 7 days to 4 weeks. Quality of life and patient preference were not reported by any of the included trials The Assessment Group concluded the systematic review was of good methodological quality. The systematic review included three RCTs (two trials examining potent topical corticosteroids and one examining very potent topical corticosteroids), all of which were included in the Assessment Report. The authors of the systematic review found that in none of the studies was more frequent application superior to once- application. They concluded that point estimates suggest that a small difference in favour of more frequent application cannot be excluded The Assessment Group did not consider meta-analysis to be appropriate because of the clinical and statistical heterogeneity of the trials. NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 10 of 39

11 Moderately potent preparations One RCT was identified that examined the frequency of application in moderately potent topical corticosteroids for ; the study population was children. The Assessment Report stated that the study was small and the duration of treatment was 7 days; the study did not report the setting, how allocation to treatment groups occurred, blinding of either outcome assessors or patients, or the number of patients responding to the treatment. There was no statistically significant difference in severity of symptoms following treatment with once- versus twice- application of topical corticosteroids. Adverse effects were not reported. Potent preparations Eight RCTs were identified that examined frequency of application in potent topical corticosteroids for. Five of these compared the same active compound administered once and twice (four of these trials examined fluticasone propionate [ointment and cream]). Three trials investigating potent topical corticosteroids compared different active compounds; these all compared a once--only product, mometasone furoate, with other topical corticosteroids administered twice Apart from two trials within this potency class, the Assessment Report considered the quality of reporting and the methodology of the included RCTs to be generally poor For four of the studies, the study setting was hospital or secondary care but the setting was not reported in the remaining studies. Duration of treatment in the studies was up to either 3 or 4 weeks. Where reported, the studies included people who had moderate to severe, apart from one study that included adults with mild to moderate eczema. One other study did not report the minimum severity of eczema of the study population Studies included children and adults, people aged over 12 years or 16 years, or adults only. Subgroup analyses of children aged 12 years or younger were reported for two trials. NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 11 of 39

12 Response to treatment The studies measured effectiveness of the treatments using a variety of different outcome measures, most of which were subjective assessments by the investigator and/or patient. All studies apart from one reported the number of patients responding to treatment. However, response to treatment was defined in different ways by the studies. Two outcomes were considered in the Assessment Report: the number of patients with at least a good response or 50% improvement, and the number of patients whose eczema was rated cleared or controlled Seven studies reported the number of patients with at least a good response, assessed by the investigator and/or patient, or at least 50% improvement by the end of 3 or 4 weeks. Six studies reported the number of patients with eczema that was rated as cleared/controlled or excellent after 3 or 4 weeks Overall, studies found little difference in response to treatment between once and twice- application of potent corticosteroids. Some statistically significant differences favouring twice- treatment were identified, but these were inconsistent between outcome assessors (physicians versus patients) and outcomes selected for analysis. Subgroup analysis of patients aged 12 years or younger produced similar findings to the main analysis One study compared success rates between morning and evening application in the once- group (67% versus 78%, difference 11.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.6 to 27.2, p = 0.17). Despite finding a statistically significant difference between once- and twice- application, when assessed by the physician (but not when assessed by the patient), the difference between once- evening treatment and twice- application was not statistically significant (78% versus 84%, difference 5.9%; 95% CI 6.6 to 18.4, p = 0.33). Severity of signs and symptoms None of the studies reported the use of a validated severity scale, and the clinical relevance of a change in severity is not clear. However, in one study, once- use of mometasone furoate, which is a once--only product, was found to result in a greater percentage improvement in total NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 12 of 39

13 scores than twice- betamethasone valerate at each assessment, (p < 0.01). Another study found an improvement in pruritus (p = 0.007) only, following mometasone furoate, compared with twice- hydrocortisone 17-butyrate. A third study comparing once- use of mometasone furoate with betamethasone dipropionate found no statistically significant differences in percentage reduction of severity for erythema, induration or pruritus. However, the Assessment Group stated that these three trials were all of poor quality because they were described as single-blind (investigators blinded), but the trials did not give details of methods or procedures, or use of placebo treatment in the once- group. Two of these trials also failed to report whether comparison groups were similar at baseline A greater reduction in severity scores demonstrated at 2 weeks (p = 0.04) for twice- compared with once- use of hydrocortisone 17-butyrate was not maintained at 4 weeks (p = 0.08) in one trial, and although the twice- group showed more pronounced reductions in rating for erythema at 4 weeks (p = 0.03), this was not the case for the other symptoms assessed. No confidence intervals were available for these trials One trial found total severity scores to be similar between once- and twice- application of fluticasone propionate ointment at each visit, although logistic regression analysis of total severity score (adjusting for age and baseline total severity score) favoured twice- application at the last visit attended (odds ratio [OR] 1.72; 95% CI 1.05 to 2.82, p = 0.033). However, the odds ratio for the treatment effect in the subgroup analysis of patients aged 12 years or younger was not statistically significant (OR 1.85; 95% CI 0.88 to 3.89, p = 1.03) None of the other studies comparing potent topical corticosteroids found a statistically significant difference in severity of following once application compared with more frequent applications. Adverse effects The quality and extent of reporting of adverse effects was variable among studies. There appeared to be little difference in the frequency or severity of adverse events between once- and twice- application of topical NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 13 of 39

14 corticosteroids, although data were limited because of the short duration of the studies One study did report potential differences in sleep disturbance, finding sleep to be "as good as ever has been" or better by 37% of patients following once application of fluticasone propionate compared with 55% of patients following twice- application. No p value or confidence intervals were available for this outcome. Very potent preparations One RCT compared once- application of halcinonide cream (0.1%) with three-times- application of the same product The trial was double-blind, but the concealment of allocation was not reported. The duration of the study was a maximum of 3 weeks, or shorter if complete remission was obtained. The age range of patients, the study setting and the minimum severity of eczema for the included patients were not reported in the study The study compared the response of similar lesions on each side of the patient. A better response (slightly superior or markedly superior) was observed following three-times- application. Overall, 32% of patients had a better clinical response to three-times- application, 21% had a better clinical response to once- application, and 47% had an equal response (p < 0.05), but no statistically significant difference was found in the number of patients with at least a good absolute therapeutic response The authors of the study stated that the side effects were generally of a mild nature, the most common being burning, pruritus and erythema, with no difference in incidence between once- and three-times- regimens, and that no systemic effects were observed. However, the Assessment Report pointed out that no data were presented on adverse effects. NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 14 of 39

15 Summary Overall, the Assessment Report did not identify any clear differences for any of the potency classes in outcomes between once- and more frequent application of topical corticosteroids. For potent preparations, one study indicated a statistically significant difference in favour of the twice- application of fluticasone propionate (ointment) in response rates between the different regimens (at least a good response rate or 50% improvement), when patients were assessed by physicians; however, this was not the case for patient assessment. For a response of cleared or controlled, one trial indicated a significant difference in favour of twice- treatment of hydrocortisone 17-butyrate when patients were assessed by a physician. Two studies, considered by the Assessment Group to be of poor quality (as described in Section ), favoured once- treatment of mometasone furoate over twice- use of other products (depending on severity of certain symptoms). The trial of a very potent corticosteroid reported a statistically significant difference in clinical response, favouring more frequent application, but no significant difference in the number of patients with at least a good response. 4.2 Cost effectiveness The Assessment Group did not identify any published economic evaluations that examined frequency of use of same-potency topical corticosteroids No economic evaluations were identified or submitted by the manufacturers or other consultees. No quality-of-life or patient preference outcomes were included in any of the studies in the systematic review The Assessment Group concluded that there was no basis to draw firm conclusions over the relative effectiveness of once- versus more frequent use of same-potency topical corticosteroids for. Consequently, the economic analysis assumes equivalent effectiveness of once- application and more frequent application of topical corticosteroids, and costminimisation analysis was undertaken. NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 15 of 39

16 4.2.4 The cost per application of topical corticosteroids varies depending on the quantity used per application. Evidence was derived from two of the included RCTs and four additional studies that were identified. The Assessment Group stated that, although it would be reasonable to assume that the actual amount of topical corticosteroid used in a once- regimen is less than that used for more frequent applications (especially when referring to the same product), it is not possible to estimate accurately the quantity of medication used according to frequency of application. Another consideration was that topical corticosteroids are applied when people experience flare-ups, rather than continuously over time. Consequently, extrapolation over longer periods of time was not straightforward The Assessment Group provided a cost-minimisation analysis for nine of the ten included clinical trials. In this, once- use was the least costly option on six occasions and twice- use the least costly on three occasions. The wide range of topical corticosteroid products available and their varied prices means that there are many possible prescribing scenarios. The availability of specifically marketed once- topical corticosteroids, which are priced much higher than other generic and proprietary products, makes a once- regimen more costly when these products are used. For example, where fluticasone propionate cream ( 4.59) or mometasone furoate ( 4.22) once is substituted for betamethasone valerate ( 1.31), betamethasone dipropionate ( 2.05) or hydrocortisone butyrate ( 2.38) twice, the once regimen would be expected to cost more than the twice- regimen The trial examining fluticasone propionate (ointment) showed a benefit associated with twice- use in terms of physician assessment (but not for patient assessment) of patients' target area of. Consequently, a simple estimate of cost effectiveness was made. This found the additional cost per treatment success to be The assumptions underlying this analysis were generous and a more realistic estimate of the treatment cost per additional successfully treated flare-up would probably be half that value. The Assessment Group concluded that the greater likelihood of treatment success (that is, successfully treated flare-up) would be of sufficient value (in terms of patient benefit, and avoided GP consultations, referrals to specialists or NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 16 of 39

17 prescribing of more expensive products) to regard twice- application as cost effective. 4.3 Consideration of the evidence The Committee reviewed the data available on the clinical and cost effectiveness of the frequency of application of topical corticosteroids for atopic eczema, having considered evidence on the nature of the condition and the value placed on the benefits of different frequencies of application of topical corticosteroids by people with, those who represent them, and clinical experts. It was also mindful of the need to take account of the effective use of NHS resources The Committee considered the various factors that might influence the frequency of application of topical corticosteroids for. These included the clinical presentation, factors influencing concordance with treatment, and patient choice. It heard from the experts that the potency of corticosteroid was not a relevant factor in determining the frequency of application Additionally, the Committee appreciated that people with eczema may have considerable fear of the use of corticosteroids, and also need to use a number of other measures to manage their condition on a basis. On the basis of expert testimony, concordance with once- or twice- application of topical corticosteroids is not of particular concern to patients because of the fact that they have to apply emollients regularly to manage their condition. The Committee was informed that good-quality patient education on the use of topical corticosteroids was a significant factor in ensuring the success of therapy. The Committee was also informed that there was a clear need for continuing education of healthcare professionals to ensure that correct advice on the use of topical corticosteroids is given to people with The Committee reviewed the evidence related to the frequency of application of topical corticosteroids in. It considered that the RCTs available were, in general, of poor methodological quality, and it was advised by the experts that longer follow-up months, not weeks would be required NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 17 of 39

18 of trials to assess fully any potential differences in long-term efficacy and adverse effects between once- and more frequent applications of topical corticosteroids. The Committee additionally appreciated that there may be differences in the pharmacokinetics of the individual topical corticosteroids, but it was persuaded that these differences, if of clinical significance, would be reflected in the clinical effectiveness evidence The Committee was informed that differences exist in clinical practice, between clinicians, in the prescription of once- or more frequent use of topical corticosteroids. However, it was agreed by the experts that, where once- application of a topical corticosteroid was initially advised, clinicians would have to increase either the potency or the frequency of the topical corticosteroid, if there was no improvement in the condition. Alternatively, if twice- application was advised initially for a flare-up, it would be expected that people would reduce the frequency of application of the same product once their condition began to improve Having considered the results from the RCTs, as well as the testimony from the expert witnesses, the Committee concluded that there was no compelling evidence of a clinically significant difference between once- application and more frequent application of topical corticosteroids in terms of their effectiveness, patient satisfaction, adverse events, concordance with therapy or the number of follow-up visits required. It was persuaded that current clinical practice would therefore support a recommendation for the use of topical corticosteroids no more frequently than twice The Committee concluded that, on the basis of the consideration in Section 4.3.6, where more than one alternative topical corticosteroid is considered clinically appropriate within a potency class, the product with the lowest acquisition cost (taking into account pack size and frequency of application) should be used in preference to more expensive alternatives. From the costminimisation analysis presented, the Committee noted that because of the acquisition cost of some products licensed solely for once- application, in some product comparisons, twice- application of other products was less costly than once- application. NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 18 of 39

19 5 Recommendations for further research 5.1 The trial literature is dominated by comparisons of differing frequency of use of fluticasone propionate (four trials) and comparisons of mometasone furoate with more traditional twice- treatment options (three trials). Trials are needed to establish whether once- use of the older (twice-) products is equivalent to more frequent use. Trials are also required to establish whether once- use of the older twice- products is equivalent to the once--only products. Trials are required for all the potency classes, in particular for mild potency preparations, because no trials examining frequency of application of topical corticosteroids exist for this group. 5.2 Robust trials are required that report quality-of-life data and patient preferences. 5.3 Long-term follow-up is required in trials to assess adverse effects such as skin atrophy. 5.4 The experts informed the Committee that there was a lack of support for people with the condition and inadequate information about the management of and the risks associated with the use of topical corticosteroids. Research should therefore be conducted to establish the most suitable method of conveying high-quality information to people with atopic eczema. NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 19 of 39

20 6 Implications for the NHS 6.1 Information is not readily available on current prescribing patterns of topical corticosteroids in patients with. There is also limited information on the quantity of product used per treatment regimen. Consequently, it is not possible, with any certainty, to establish baseline information on which to base estimates of the resource impact of changes in prescribing between preparations of different acquisition costs. Furthermore, such cost savings will be relatively small at the patient level, and issues related to pack size and product waste can easily erode any potential cost saving. However, given the large patient group with, there may be opportunities for significant savings to the NHS on products prescribed, particularly at a primary care level, because this is where most prescribing of topical corticosteroids is likely to occur. 6.2 An illustrative scenario is explored below. The estimate is based on a number of assumptions used in the calculations, and so should be interpreted cautiously. The underlying assumptions are that patients have two to four flareups a year, that they throw away any unused products after each flare-up, and that patients applying topical corticosteroids once would use either 50% or 75% of the amount they would use if they were applying the product twice. These potential savings assume that all the patient prescription costs are met by the NHS. In practice, however, many patients may receive only one prescription per year, because they may not discard their unused products. Consequently, the figures in the scenario below are likely to be an estimate of the maximum cost savings to the NHS. 6.3 Where a prescribing practice of one of the newer once--only products can appropriately be altered to twice- use of one of the older, cheaper topical corticosteroids of the same potency, cost savings have been estimated to range from 300,000 to 600,000 (excluding VAT) for a patient group of 100,000 people with. NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 20 of 39

21 7 Implementation and audit 7.1 All clinicians who care for people with should review their current practice and policies to take account of the guidance set out in Section Local guidelines or care pathways for people with should incorporate the guidance. 7.3 To measure compliance locally with the guidance, the following criteria could be used. Further details on suggestions for audit are presented in Appendix C Topical corticosteroids for are prescribed for application only once or twice If more than one alternative topical corticosteroid is considered clinically appropriate within a potency class, the drug with the lowest acquisition cost is prescribed. 7.4 Local clinical audits could also include measurement of compliance with recognised guidelines for the management of and the effectiveness of patient education on the use of topical corticosteroids. NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 21 of 39

22 8 Related guidance 8.1 The Institute has issued guidance on the use of tacrolimus and pimecrolimus for ( 82) NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 22 of 39

23 9 Review of guidance 9.1 The review date for a technology appraisal refers to the month and year in which the Guidance Executive will consider any new evidence on the technology, in the form of an updated Assessment Report, and decide whether the technology should be referred to the Appraisal Committee for review. 9.2 The guidance on this technology will be reviewed in July Andrew Dillon Chief Executive August 2004 NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 23 of 39

24 Appendix A. Appraisal Committee members NOTE The Appraisal Committee is a standing advisory committee of the Institute. Its members are appointed for a 3-year term. A list of the Committee members who took part in the discussions for this appraisal appears below. The Appraisal Committee meets twice a month except in December, when there are no meetings. The Committee membership is split into three branches, with the chair, vice-chair and a number of other members attending meetings of all branches. Each branch considers its own list of technologies and ongoing topics are not moved between the branches. Committee members are asked to declare any interests in the technology to be appraised. If it is considered there is a conflict of interest, the member is excluded from participating further in that appraisal. The minutes of each Appraisal Committee meeting, which include the names of the members who attended and their declarations of interests, are posted on the NICE website. Dr A E Ades Senior Scientist, MRC Health Services Research Collaboration, University of Bristol Dr Tom Aslan General Practitioner, Stockwell, London Professor David Barnett (Chair) Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Leicester Professor Rosamund Bryar Professor of Community & Primary Care Nursing, St Bartholomew School of Nursing and Midwifery Dr Rodney Burnham Consultant Physician & Gastroenterologist, Oldchurch Hospital, Romford Dr Gary Butler Consultant Paediatrician/Endocrinologist, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 24 of 39

25 Dr Karl Claxton Health Economist, University of York Dr Christopher Eccleston Director, Pain Management Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Bath Ms Bethan George Interface Liaison Pharmacist, Mile End Hospital, London Mr John Goulston Director of Finance, Barts and the London NHS Trust Mr Adrian Griffin Health Outcomes Manager, Johnson & Johnson Medical Ltd Judith Paget Chief Executive, Caerphilly Local Health Board Dr Katherine Payne Research Fellow, Health Economics, University of Manchester Mrs Kathryn Roberts Nurse Practitioner, Hyde, Cheshire Ms Anne Smith Lay Representative; Trustee, Long-Term Medical Conditions Alliance Professor Andrew Stevens (Vice-Chair) Professor of Public Health, University of Birmingham Dr Cathryn Thomas General Practitioner, and Senior Lecturer, Department of Primary Care & General Practice, University of Birmingham NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 25 of 39

26 Dr Norman Vetter Reader, Department of Epidemiology, Statistics and Public Health, College of Medicine, University of Wales, Cardiff Dr Paul Watson Medical Director, Essex Strategic Health Authority NICE Project Team Each appraisal of a technology is assigned to a Health Technology Analyst and a Technology Appraisal Project Manager within the Institute. Joanna Richardson Health Technology Analyst Kathleen Dalby Technology Appraisal Project Manager NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 26 of 39

27 Appendix B. Sources of evidence considered by the Committee The following documentation and opinions were made available to the Committee: A. The Assessment Report for this appraisal was prepared by Southampton Health Technology Assessment Centre. Green C, Colquitt JL, Kirby J et al. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of once versus more frequent use of same potency topical corticosteroids for : a systematic review and economic evaluation, November B. The following organisations accepted the invitation to participate in this appraisal. They were invited to make submissions and comment on the draft scope, Assessment Report and the Appraisal Consultation Document (ACD). Consultee organisations are provided with the opportunity to appeal against the Final Appraisal Determination. I) Manufacturer/sponsors: Dermal Laboratories GlaxoSmithKline Novartis Pliva Pharma Schering-Plough Stiefel Laboratories (UK) Typharm Waymade Healthcare Yamanouchi II) Professional/specialist, patient/carer and other groups: NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 27 of 39

28 British Association of Dermatologists British Generic Manufacturers' Association Department of Health Hounslow Primary Care Trust National Eczema Society Primary Care Dermatology Society Royal College of General Practitioners Royal College of Nursing Royal College of Physicians Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain Skin Care Campaign Welsh Assembly Government III) Commentator organisations (without the right of appeal): NHS Confederation NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency NHS Quality Improvement Scotland Skin Treatment and Research Trust C. The following individuals were selected from clinical expert and patient advocate nominations from the professional/specialist and patient/carer groups. They participated in the Appraisal Committee discussions and provided evidence to inform the Appraisal Committee's deliberations. They gave their expert personal view on the frequency of application of topical corticosteroids for by attending the initial Committee discussion and/or providing written evidence to the Committee. They were also invited to comment on the ACD. Ms Sandra Lawton, Nurse Consultant Dermatology, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 28 of 39

29 Dr Celia Moss, Consultant Dermatologist, Birmingham Children's Hospital Ms Sue Ward, Information and Education Manager, National Eczema Society NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 29 of 39

30 Appendix C. Detail on criteria for audit of the frequency of application of topical corticosteroids for Possible objectives for an audit An audit could be carried out to ensure the appropriateness of prescription of topical corticosteroids for. Possible patients to be included in the audit An audit could be carried out on all patients seen for in a reasonable period for audit, for example, 6 months, who are prescribed topical corticosteroids but not those topical agents that combine corticosteroids with other active agents (for example, antimicrobials or salicylic acid). Measures that could be used as a basis for an audit The measures that could be used in an audit of the prescription of topical corticosteroids for are shown in the table following. Criterion Standard Exception Definition of terms NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 30 of 39

31 1. Topical 100% of None The diagnosis of is established corticosteroids people for by the person having an itchy skin condition in for atopic whom topical the past 12 months plus three or more of the eczema are corticosteroids following: history of flexural involvement (that is, prescribed for for atopic affecting the bends of the elbow or behind the application eczema are knees); history of a generally dry skin; personal only once or prescribed history of other atopic disease (in children twice younger than 4 years, history of atopic disease in a first-degree relative may be included); visible flexural dermatitis as defined by a photographic protocol; and onset before the age of 2 years (not used in children younger than 4 years). For a list of preparations of topical corticosteroids that are relevant for this measure,seeappendix D. 2. If more 100% of None Clinicians will need to agree locally on how the than one people who lowest acquisition cost is determined for audit alternative are prescribed purposes, taking into account pack size and topical topical frequency of application. See Appendix D for a corticosteroid corticosteroids list of preparations by potency class. is considered for atopic clinically eczema appropriate within a potency class, the drug with the lowest acquisition cost is prescribed Calculation of compliance Compliance (%) with each measure described in the table above is calculated as follows. NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 31 of 39

32 Number of patients whose care is consistent with the criterion plus number of patients who meet any exception listed x 100 Number of patients to whom the measure applies Clinicians should review the findings of measurement, identify whether practice can be improved, agree on a plan to achieve any desired improvement and repeat the measurement of actual practice to confirm that the desired improvement is being achieved. NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 32 of 39

33 Appendix D. Topical corticosteroids for the treatment of, grouped by potency BNF chemical Manufacturer Product name Posology Net cost [a] per 30 g/ name ( ) from 30 ml [b] for each SPCs, strength (does not where include VAT or available dispensing fee) Mild potency NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 33 of 39

34 Hydrocortisone Alpharma Generic N/A 0.66, 0.74, 0.65, BCM Specials Bell Sons & Co. (Druggists) Bioglan hydrocortisone cream 0.5%, 1%, ointment 0.5%, 1% 0.76 Laboratories Bioglan Pharmaceuticals Biorex Laboratories Co-Pharma Diomed Developments Galpharm Healthcare Lagap Pharmaceuticals Norton Pharmaceuticals Novartis Pinewood Laboratories Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Roussel Laboratories Thornton & Ross Waymade NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 34 of 39

35 Hydrocortisone GlaxoSmithKline Efcortelan cream/ 2 3 times 0.66, 0.81, 1.83 ointment 0.5%, 1%, 2.5% Hydrocortisone Yamanouchi Mildison Lipocream 1% Hydrocortisone Dermal Dioderm cream 0.1% 2 3 times Twice Fluocinolone GP Pharma Synalar cream 1/ 2 3 times 1.15 acetonide 10, % Moderate potency Alclometasone Pliva Modrasone 2 3 times 1.69 dipropionate cream/ointment 0.05% Betamethasone GlaxoSmithKline Betnovate RD 2 3 times 1.08 valerate cream/ointment 0.025% Clobetasone GlaxoSmithKline Eumovate cream/ Up to butyrate ointment 0.05% times Desoximetasone Stiefel Stiedex LP oily 2 3 times 2.46 cream 0.05% Fluocinolone GP Pharma Synalar cream/ 2 3 times 1.22 acetonide ointment 1/4, % Fluocortolone Meadow Ultralanum Plain cream/ointment 0.25% N/A 1.77 Fludroxycortide Typharm Haelan cream/ ointment % 2 3 times 1.63 NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 35 of 39

36 Potent Beclometasone GlaxoSmithKline Propaderm Twice 1.74 dipropionate cream/ointment 0.025% Betamethasone Schering Plough Diprosone cream/ 1 2 times 2.05, 2.61 dipropionate ointment 0.05%, lotion 0.05% Betamethasone GlaxoSmithKline Betnovate cream/ 2 3 times 1.31, 1.57, 1.71 valerate ointment 0.1%, lotion 0.1%, scalp application 0.1% Betamethasone Celltech Bettamousse Twice 2.25 valerate foam 0.12% Betamethasone Dermal Betacap scalp Twice 1.27 valerate application 0.1% Betamethasone Dowelhurst, Generic N/A 1.54, 1.69 valerate Futuna betamethasone valerate cream 0.1%, ointment 0.1% Diflucortolone Meadow Nerisone cream/ N/A 1.59, 2.56 valerate ointment 0.1%, oily cream 0.1% Fluocinolone GP Pharma Synalar cream/ 2 3 times 1.74, 2.57 acetonide ointment 0.025%, gel 0.025% Fluocinonide GP Pharma Metosyn FAPG cream 0.05%, ointment 0.05% 3 4 times 1.54, 1.52 Fluticasone GlaxoSmithKline Cutivate cream Once 4.59 propionate 0.05% NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 36 of 39

37 Fluticasone GlaxoSmithKline Cutivate ointment Twice 4.59 propionate 0.05% Hydrocortisone Yamanouchi Locoid Lipocream 2 3 times 2.38 butyrate 0.1% Hydrocortisone Yamanouchi Locoid cream/ 2 4 times 2.27, 3.15 butyrate ointment 0.1%, scalp lotion 0.1% Hydrocortisone Yamanouchi Locoid Crelo 2 3 times 2.72 butyrate 0.1% Mometasone Schering Plough Elocon cream/ Once 4.22, 4.88 furoate ointment 0.1%, scalp lotion 0.1% Very potent Clobetasol GlaxoSmithKline Dermovate 1 2 times 2.48, 3.27 propionate cream/ointment 0.05%, scalp application 0.05% Diflucortolone Schering Nerisone Forte N/A 4.18 valerate Health/Meadow ointment/oily cream 0.3% Halcinonide Bristol-Myers Halciderm cream 2 3 times 3.40 Squibb 0.1% [a] Taken from BNF 47 (March 2004) [b] Using largest pack sizes available (for example, where 100 g is the largest pack size, the cost is calculated using the 100 g price multiplied by 0.3) N/A not available NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 37 of 39

38 Changes after publication March 2014: minor maintenance March 2012: minor maintenance NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 38 of 39

39 About this guidance guidance is about the use of new and existing medicines and treatments in the NHS in England and Wales. We have produced a summary of this guidance for patients and carers. Tools to help you put the guidance into practice and information about the evidence it is based on are also available. Your responsibility This guidance represents the views of NICE and was arrived at after careful consideration of the evidence available. Healthcare professionals are expected to take it fully into account when exercising their clinical judgement. However, the guidance does not override the individual responsibility of healthcare professionals to make decisions appropriate to the circumstances of the individual patient, in consultation with the patient and/or guardian or carer. Implementation of this guidance is the responsibility of local commissioners and/or providers. Commissioners and providers are reminded that it is their responsibility to implement the guidance, in their local context, in light of their duties to avoid unlawful discrimination and to have regard to promoting equality of opportunity. Nothing in this guidance should be interpreted in a way which would be inconsistent with compliance with those duties. Copyright National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence All rights reserved. NICE copyright material can be downloaded for private research and study, and may be reproduced for educational and not-for-profit purposes. No reproduction by or for commercial organisations, or for commercial purposes, is allowed without the written permission of NICE. NICE All rights reserved. Last modified August 2004 Page 39 of 39